"well, well, well" in MacBeth
- From: "FCS" <sipston_777@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Sep 2006 04:25:13 -0700
I don't know if anyone else finds this with
accelerated input techniques but when it
transpires there's somet' wrong with a text
there can be no option but to go through,
word for word, until it becomes obvious.
As a general rule of orthopragmatics then
I recommend it's wiser to speed-read only
second editions and later, as firsts often
contain oversights that even the authors
agree they wish either their copyeditors,
tutees or peers had not been so in awe
of their auctoritee as to be asked to raise
such issues but ha' thought better on't.
One of these appears to be in David Crystal's
"The Stories of English" (Penguin, London,
2004), from "Interlude 8 - Well well".
'And in "Macbeth" (V.i.51) the Doctor uses
a triple "well", at a loss to know how to react
on hearing the profound sigh from the sleep-
walking Lady Macbeth:'
Gent: I would not have such a heart in my
bosom, for the dignity of the whole body.
Doct: Well, well, well.
Gent: Pray God it be, sir.
Now, according to Crystal:
'What is interesting about the Gentlewoman's
response, of course (sic), is her taking the
Doctor's words literally. This must (sic) be the
first recorded instance in written English of
someone failing to understand a discourse
function of "well".'
Now I have a lot of regard for David Crystal.
In terms of busting some myths about language
and in particular making sociolinguistic theory
accessible he's done great work; in terms of
missing some of the subtleties along the way
it's as well he's always focussed on the bigger
picture. To reason by analogy: there is a Latin
inscription near the Cow and Calf rocks on
Ilkley Moor, carved in and weathered. For
years I believed it was Roman until I realised
that just because it's in Latin doesn't mean it
wasn't carved by a Victorian, possibly even
sometime in living memory. It doesn't mean
it isn't Roman, more just that anyone with Latin
could've done it at any time.
Where Crystal is wrong on this one concerning
the Doctor and the Gentlewoman-in-waiting is
thus: theme of the scene is that the woman's
word has been called into question throughout,
in the two nights referred to prior to the scene
and, presumably, during negotiations prior to
these again. She, being of a lower social status
than either the Doctor of Physic or Lady Macbeth,
has got him there in a night-time vigil not only
as she is scared for her own well-being if she
simply recounts what she has seen--as there
are no witnesses but her; but also because it
seems he will not believe her broader account
of the events.
And, sure enough, the scene is structured
such that one can imagine a skeptical expert
along with a Baldric-type character: he doubts
her assertion there's a problem then Lady M
shows up, he observes her eyes are open, yet
then agrees she is not in a waking state, he's
been pushing for what she's been saying, then
is left speechless.
At the end of the day: if a Professor of Letters
such as David Crystal doesn't understand the Bard
then what hope, in all fairness, has the average
GCSE English Literature candidate?
We've seen what he concludes above yet, so
far as I can tell, she's giving the Doctor the
best advice she can: You might as well pray
God that it all does work out well as it's not
within your scope to do aught is it?
She couldn't tell him what she'd seen and
heard as, in her own words, she'd no witness
to it--and as such her life was in danger if
she had. Then for all the "you can tell me,
pray you" of the Doctor, what he himself has
seen has left him with rather more thinking
than talking to do.
Now, not wishing to end on a critical note, I
do find it interesting that with the politics of
The Tudor and Stuart periods, and particularly,
given the Northern setting for the play, the
Bard brings in a character "Siward", not, for
us reading on paper, anything but an odd name
that's no longer popular but in the noise and
bustle of the Elizabethan stage just another
name that could be misheard as "Stuart" who,
in all fairness, had reigned over Scotland in
the form of James IV and V prior to assuming
the reins of England too in the form of James VI
aka James I.
But of course, if it ever came to a court of law,
he could refer to the text as it is printed, saying
"any resemblance is purely coincidental, look it
clearly says here 'Siward' NOT 'Stewart' or even
'Stuart' Your Honour and Me Learned Gentlemen."
Reading historically, Shakespeare just wished
he hadn't been compromised in the power
struggles of his day and, perhaps, moving to
London was as much to avoid being implicated
in plots hatched between the Midlands houses
as it was part of any Grand Vision he had for
the future of the dramatic arts?
I can only hope this oversight on Crystal's part
isn't one of the "deliberate mistakes" that our
academics make in order to ensure that "no, our
students really do earn their A grades at GCSE"
and look forward to reading whatever it is he's
currently working on when it hits the presses.
F SIPSTON
COPYRIGHT (C) 2006 F SIPSTON
Bibliography:
Crystal, D; The Stories of English; 1st edition;
Penguin, London, 2004; ISBN 0-713-99752-4
Shakespeare, W; Macbeth; Penguin, London,
1994; ISBN 0-14-062079-6
Clark, WG & Wright WA (eds.); William Shake-
speare; The Complete Works of; Parragon, Bath,
2000; ISBN 0-75254-553-1
--
Opinions are like pituitaries--everyone's got one.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "well, well, well" in MacBeth
- From: dearcilla
- Re: "well, well, well" in MacBeth
- From: Don Phillipson
- Re: "well, well, well" in MacBeth
- From: Peter Duncanson
- Re: "well, well, well" in MacBeth
- From: Mike Lyle
- Re: "well, well, well" in MacBeth
- Prev by Date: Re: Indiscerptible or indiscerpible: which version is correct?
- Next by Date: Re: Momentarily verbal
- Previous by thread: Apostrophe Use
- Next by thread: Re: "well, well, well" in MacBeth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading